Nothing Wise, Safe about What Clinton Calls 'Smart Power'

On December 3, 2014, Hillary Clinton spoke at Georgetown University, saying:

“This is what we call smart power. Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change -- change the prospects for peace.”

When I first heard this speech, my first reaction was, this is inane; did she really say those things?

Twenty months later, I feel the same.

What she said was inane. Banal blather.

In the 20 months that have passed, America has seen its enemies in action.

We have watched North Korea develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

We have been trying to “empathize” with the North Korean dictators since the days of Bill Clinton to convince North Korea to give up its goal of having nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. We have provided them with bribes galore in the form of food and energy. In return, they have covertly built their WMDs and missiles, and most recently have fired three off -- sticking them up the noses of President Obama and the other gathered world leaders.

Has empathizing with their point of view induced them to forego their weapon’s programs? Has showing respect for the pot-bellied dictator advanced peace and security? Provided solutions?

Just this last week we have seen an Afghan immigrant who we brought to America and gave citizenship to, plant a number of bombs designed to kill and maim innocent American men, women and children. Earlier we saw two brothers plant pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon which killed and tore of the legs off nearby children.

How did we fail to show respect for them?

How does one understand the perspective and point of view of someone who sneaks around and plants bombs on street corners designed to slaughter women and children? Why would anyone in their right mind empathize with such miscreants?

In Africa, Boko Haran kidnaps 300 young teenage girls, and either forces them into marriages or sells them off as slaves. Do you really feel showing respect for these barbarians will advance 21st century peace?

Change the prospects for peace?

Would you empathize with someone who did this to your 11-year-old daughter?

Do you really believe we should try, so far as possible, to empathize with Boko Haran’s perspective and point of view?


In recent months we have employed “smart power” in our negotiations with Iran.

We have ended sanctions, paid them billions of dollars and paid ransom. And to what effect?

They make mock runs at our naval vessels, threaten to shoot down our airplanes, take more hostages, and provide support to terrorist groups around the world.

Negotiations make sense.

Real peace is better than war. But when your enemy uses negotiations to prepare for war, or to take steps that make America far less secure (such as N. Korea building WMDs and ballistic missile), then Mrs. Clinton’s “smart power” is delusion.

Or do you really believe that negotiating with ISIS will deter them from beheading captives, burning captured pilots in cages, or inducing ISIS wannabees in our country from killing Americans in our shopping malls?

We are told that Mrs. Clinton is the most qualified person ever to run for president.

That is not what her “smart power speech” indicates to me.

By John Donald O'Shea
Sep 23, 2016

It’s Killers, not Jurors who Inflict Cruel, Unusual Punishment

An op-ed writer, unlike a sitting judge, can assume that a defendant will be found guilty.

I am doing precisely that to make my points.

Two nurse practitioners, Sister Margaret Held and Sister Paula Merrill, “the sweetest, most gentle women you can imagine” were found knifed to death in their rural Holmes County Mississippi home on Aug. 25.

Their life’s work was to provide flu shots, insulin and other medical care for children and adults who couldn’t afford it. Sister Paula had served the poor of the county for 30 years. Their Lexington clinic provided about 25 percent of all the medical care in the county of 18,000. “They’d help anybody they could help. They’d give you the shirt off their backs.”

The stark reality is this: These two nuns were deprived of life and liberty without due process of law. Their murderer arrogated unto himself the offices of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The nuns were provided no attorneys. They were not allowed to confront nor cross-examine their accuser in open court. They received no trial consistent with the law of the land. They were executed in a summary fashion. For them: no fair trial; no appeal; no constitutional rights.

Now Rodney Earl Sanders has been arrested and charged with two counts of capital murder. It appears Sanders was released from prison in December 2015 after serving nine months for a felony driving under the influence conviction -- as per the Mississippi DOC. Their records are said to show that he also did prison time from the mid 1980s to early 1990s for armed robbery.

If Sanders is indeed prosecuted, all the rights he denied to Sisters Margaret and Paula will be lavished upon him. And if the prosecutor seeks the death penalty, and if Sanders is convicted and sentenced to death, a phalanx of lawyers and other “enlightened individuals” will trip over themselves to ensure that Sanders escapes the death penalty.

They’ll argue the death penalty is “too random.” That one murderer escapes the death sentence while the next murderer gets it. They will call any method of execution, “cruel and unusual punishment!”

When his case gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be heard by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonja Sotomayer and Elana Kagen -- “progressive” judges who are certain that their own notions of “cruel and unusual punishment” are superior to those of the men who wrote and adopted our Constitution.

Sander’s appeal would afford them one more opportunity to abolish the death penalty -- not withstanding the fact that the men who wrote the Constitution specifically acknowledged that the state could impose the death penalty, as long as trial was pursuant to indictment, and due process was accorded the defendant.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not believe that the death penalty is appropriate in every murder case, or even in this case. But in some cases, the FACTS of the case justify imposition of the death penalty.

And because whether the death penalty should be imposed is preeminently a “fact question,” and since juries (not judges) determine questions of fact under our Constitution, the question of whether the death penalty is appropriate in light of all the facts of the case is a question for ordinary citizens and not judges (government functionaries).

A 12-man jury brings 12 different judgments to all the great issues: Can the murderer be rehabilitated? Will imprisonment adequately protect the public? Is death proportionate to defendant’s offense? Will life deprecate the enormity of the murder? Considering the facts, Is death deserved?

The people of the U.S., of course, can amend the Constitution to abolish the death penalty. But the notion that judges can effectively declare two express provisions of the Constitution unconstitutional, is nothing more than judicial fiat, judicial usurpation, and judicial misconduct.

If the facts are as alleged, it seems to me Sanders is an excellent candidate for any usual form of execution. His sentence will be far less “random” than the death penalties he imposed upon his victims. And perhaps because I presided over so many jury trials, I’ve come to trust juries more than I trust judges.


Posted: QCOline.com September 9, 2016

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

It’s Killers, not Jurors who Inflict Cruel, Unusual Punishment

An op-ed writer, unlike a sitting judge, can assume that a defendant will be found guilty.

I am doing precisely that to make my points.

Two nurse practitioners, Sister Margaret Held and Sister Paula Merrill, “the sweetest, most gentle women you can imagine” were found knifed to death in their rural Holmes County Mississippi home on Aug. 25.

Their life’s work was to provide flu shots, insulin and other medical care for children and adults who couldn’t afford it. Sister Paula had served the poor of the county for 30 years. Their Lexington clinic provided about 25 percent of all the medical care in the county of 18,000. “They’d help anybody they could help. They’d give you the shirt off their backs.”

The stark reality is this: These two nuns were deprived of life and liberty without due process of law. Their murderer arrogated unto himself the offices of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The nuns were provided no attorneys. They were not allowed to confront nor cross-examine their accuser in open court. They received no trial consistent with the law of the land. They were executed in a summary fashion. For them: no fair trial; no appeal; no constitutional rights.

Now Rodney Earl Sanders has been arrested and charged with two counts of capital murder. It appears Sanders was released from prison in December 2015 after serving nine months for a felony driving under the influence conviction -- as per the Mississippi DOC. Their records are said to show that he also did prison time from the mid 1980s to early 1990s for armed robbery.

If Sanders is indeed prosecuted, all the rights he denied to Sisters Margaret and Paula will be lavished upon him. And if the prosecutor seeks the death penalty, and if Sanders is convicted and sentenced to death, a phalanx of lawyers and other “enlightened individuals” will trip over themselves to ensure that Sanders escapes the death penalty.

They’ll argue the death penalty is “too random.” That one murderer escapes the death sentence while the next murderer gets it. They will call any method of execution, “cruel and unusual punishment!”

When his case gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be heard by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonja Sotomayer and Elana Kagen -- “progressive” judges who are certain that their own notions of “cruel and unusual punishment” are superior to those of the men who wrote and adopted our Constitution.

Sander’s appeal would afford them one more opportunity to abolish the death penalty -- not withstanding the fact that the men who wrote the Constitution specifically acknowledged that the state could impose the death penalty, as long as trial was pursuant to indictment, and due process was accorded the defendant.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not believe that the death penalty is appropriate in every murder case, or even in this case. But in some cases, the FACTS of the case justify imposition of the death penalty.

And because whether the death penalty should be imposed is preeminently a “fact question,” and since juries (not judges) determine questions of fact under our Constitution, the question of whether the death penalty is appropriate in light of all the facts of the case is a question for ordinary citizens and not judges (government functionaries).

A 12-man jury brings 12 different judgments to all the great issues: Can the murderer be rehabilitated? Will imprisonment adequately protect the public? Is death proportionate to defendant’s offense? Will life deprecate the enormity of the murder? Considering the facts, Is death deserved?

The people of the U.S., of course, can amend the Constitution to abolish the death penalty. But the notion that judges can effectively declare two express provisions of the Constitution unconstitutional, is nothing more than judicial fiat, judicial usurpation, and judicial misconduct.

If the facts are as alleged, it seems to me Sanders is an excellent candidate for any usual form of execution. His sentence will be far less “random” than the death penalties he imposed upon his victims. And perhaps because I presided over so many jury trials, I’ve come to trust juries more than I trust judges.


QCOline.com September 9, 2016

Copyright, John Donald O'Shea

Lessons for US in Venezuelan Socialist "Utopia"

In 1999, the Venezuelan people elected socialist/Marxist Hugo Chavez as president. He promised a socialist paradise. Chavez clung to office until his death in 2013.

During his "term," Chavez expropriated property from the rich and redistributed it to the poor, giving them new homes and appliances. Chavez was succeeded by hand-picked Vice President Nicolas Maduro.

Now, three years later, 1.85 million Venezuelans signed petitions to remove Maduro from office. (Nine times the number needed to begin the process!) Maduro's electoral commission refuses to hold the election, claiming fraud! Maduro's approval rating stands at 24.3 percent.

So, what went wrong with the Venezuelan socialist experiment? Its Marxist economy? In short, the money ran out.

The problems did not begin with Maduro. Even in the halcyon Chavez days, when Venezuelan oil sold for $100 a barrel, the nation's debt was rising, and there were food shortages.

Oil accounts for 98 percent of the country's exports; 59 percent of its revenues. When oil dropped to $30 a barrel (it's now about $49), the country's economy tanked.

In 2016, government spending is expected to exceed revenues by 25 percent. The International Monetary Fund projects inflation will reach 4,505 percent by 2021.

The nation's capital, Caracas, has become the world's most violent city. In socialist utopian Venezuela, equality has been achieved; everybody's without hope!

Recently, a plastic bag stuffed with toilet paper rolls sold for 9,000 Bolivars. A bag of fruit and vegetables that could be purchased for 430 Bolivars in April of 2015, now costs 14,000 Bolivars. A Venezuela worker's average monthly salary is 15,000 Bolivars.

To offset the plunge in oil revenues, the government drastically cut imports to 2004 levels.

The result? Across-the-board shortages of milk, razors, cough syrup, toothpaste, toilet paper and baby wipes -- things you now get only on the black market. Hospitals and pharmacies are desperately short of even the most basic medicines, such as amoxycillin. In markets where prices are government controlled, shelves are half-empty.

To make things worse, a prolonged drought has reduced to oversized puddles the Venezuelan lakes which provide water to the country's hydroelectric dams. Less water means less electricity. The government's response? Rolling blackouts, two-day work weeks for public sector workers, and Friday school closings.

Venezuela nationalized profitable private businesses. Managers were replaced to provide jobs for the poor. But because appointees lacked management skills, once-profitable businesses went bankrupt.

-- On Jan. 15, President Maduro declared a 60-day state of economic emergency, allowing the government to seize assets of private companies to obtain essential food and goods.

-- On Feb. 18, Maduro raised the price of gasoline -- frozen for the past 20 years at $0.01 per liter, to $0.60 -- while devaluing the Bolivar and increasing the minimum wage.

-- On April 21, Maduro imposed electricity blackouts to last four hours per day for 40 days in several states.

-- On April 27, Maduro cut the working week for public-sector employees to two days to save electricity.

-- On May 15, the government said their will be no recall vote due to "fraud."

-- On May 18, Venezuelans took to the street, and Maduro responded that he is prepared to escalate the state of emergency.

-- On July 22, President Maduro, issued a presidential decree: "people working in public and private companies can be called upon to join state-sponsored organizations specialized in the production of food. They will be made to work in the new companies temporarily for a minimum of 60 days after which their 'contracts' will be automatically renewed for an extra 60-day period or they will be allowed to go back to their original jobs."
Amnesty International said that "new decree establishing that any employee in Venezuela can be effectively made to work in the country’s fields as a way to fight the current food crisis is unlawful, and effectively amounts to forced labour -- even if paid their old wages."

Forced labor equals slavery.

It has taken Chavez and Maduro 17 years to transition from capitalism to socialism to slavery. President Obama has started a similar process here. Hillary proposes to serve his "third term."


Posted: Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2016 - QCOline.com

Copyright 2016

John Donald O'Shea

Remember LBJ When You Vote in November

A prominent Rock Island attorney once told me that “if a man lacks integrity, he is unfit to be a judge -- even if he possesses the wisdom of Solomon, all the legal ability in the world, a God-like temperament, and passion for work.”

If you are a woman, would you marry a man who you know to be an habitual liar? Who lies in matters large and small? Why? For wealth? Security?

Would you hire an attorney who lies as the means to achieve his ends? A compulsive liar? A man without integrity who lies to you?

Would you employ a doctor who lies? A doctor who you knew would recommend hip replacement surgery, even if he knew you didn’t need it? Simply to get rich?

In just over three months, we will elect a president of the United States. Are you willing to elect a liar?

The next president will have power to send your children to death. If you elect a known liar, how could you ever trust him when he or she tells the nation, “War is necessary?” When you know he will use lies to achieve his ends? Think it couldn’t happen? Just remember LBJ!

I can distinctly recall President Johnson and his secretary of defense telling us that our warships were attacked without provocation in “international waters” by North Vietnamese patrol boats. I can recall his secretary of defense telling Congress that our destroyers played no part in covert South Vietnamese commando operations against North Vietnamese military installations, when in fact our people had planned the commando operations and provided intelligence to the South Vietnamese.

As a result of these lies/half-truths, Congress gave LBJ a blank check to retaliate, and by the time our “retaliation” had ended, 50,000 American boys died in a god-forsaken jungle war, half way around the globe.

I want to know that when the president tells us, “We must go to war,” he is telling us the truth -- the whole truth -- and nothing but the truth.

This November, we have the option of electing the first female president -- a woman who rarely if ever tells the truth. A woman who believes the ends justify the means. A woman who lies when there’s no reason to lie: e.g., My daughter and I came under sniper fire on a tarmac in Bosnia. A woman who lies in bigger things: the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was precipitated by an Internet movie, while contemporaneously telling her daughter, Chelsea, that it was a terrorist attack. A woman who lies in big things, such as, there no classified emails on her personal server, when according to FBI Director Comey there were not only classified emails, but even top secret emails.

This fall a great many Americans will cast their presidential vote for a woman who lies whenever she perceives it to be in her best interest. And a hypocrite who accepts $250,000-plus per speech from the same Wall Street “fat-cats” she denounces on the hustings.

I can only explain this phenomenon by looking at the promises she has made to the American people -- to provide free goodies. She understands that no one votes against Santa. When she promises free college education, forgiveness of student loans and “universal quality affordable health care for everyone (which would include illegal aliens) in America,” she becomes a living, breathing Santa.

LBJ promised us a “War on Poverty.” Instead we got a different war. His lies got us into Vietnam and 50,000 American boys died. Whatever the goodies promised, voting for a known liar isn’t worth the risk.

P.S. Unfortunately, Hillary’s opponent is Trump. But he has, at least, promised to appoint Supreme Court judges who will construe the Constitution consistently with the intent of the “men who wrote it.” The Founding Fathers understood from experience that liberty could not coexist with an “all-powerful central government.”

Washington and Madison’s construction of the Constitution, or the “more-enlightened” construction of whichever judge happens to be sitting on the bench. That is your choice.


Posted: Wednesday, August 12, 2016 - QCOline.com

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Why Can't Obama See, Drug Dealers Deal Death?

As fast as U.S. attorneys and federal judges imprison cocaine and heroin dealers, President Obama seemingly commutes their sentences, and puts them back on the street, naively or disingenuously describing them as "non-violent offenders."




On July 24, The Dispatch ran an article captioned "RICo sees rise in fatal heroin overdoses."

Justin Gengler is dead; his grandmother believes the cause of his death was heroin. According to the Rock Island County coroner, "Since 2011 there have been 39 fatal heroin overdoses in Rock Island County, with victims ... ranging in age from 19 to 59."

The article adds, "State and federal prosecutors are increasingly filing homicide-related charges against people accused of providing heroin that led to an overdose death" for wantonly providing drugs that kill.

But while prosecutors more and more may be filing homicide-related charges, Whitehouse.gov boasts, in some detail, of President Obama's drug-dealer sentence commutations.

On March 30, the administration announced sentence commutations for 61 drug offenders. Twelve of those "non-violent" 61, had also been convicted of related firearm offenses. These March 30 commutations brought the total of Obama drug-offense commutations to 248 -- more than the six prior presidents combined!

Those commutations include:


1. Carmel Bretous, Miami, Fla. Conspiracy to import at least five kilograms of cocaine; importation of five kilograms of cocaine; conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine; possession with intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine; Sentence: 235 months' imprisonment; five years' supervised release (Nov. 6, 2001) Commuted to: Prison sentence commuted to expire on July 28, 2016.

2. Dexter Lanoyd Dickens, Panama City, Fla. Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine; distribution of a mixture or substance containing cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school (four counts); principal to distribution and possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine; distribution and possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cocaine; possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine; Sentence: Life imprisonment; 10 years' supervised release (Dec. 17, 2004). Commuted to: Sentence expired on July 28, 2016.

3. Bernard Beard, Compton, Calif. Conspiracy to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, and phencyclidine (PCP); felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; Sentence: 240 months' imprisonment; five years' supervised release (May 22, 2009). Commuted to: Sentence expired on July 28, 2016.

4. Ernest Spiller, East St. Louis. Distribution of crack cocaine (two counts); maintaining a crack house; possession of a firearm in further of a drug trafficking crime; felon in possession of a firearm. Sentence: 352 months' imprisonment; three years' supervised release; $1,000 fine (Aug. 3, 2000). Commuted to: Sentence expired on July 28.

Later, President Obama commuted the sentences of 58 more drug dealers, including Wade Cutchen, Newport News, Va. Offense: Conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine; possession with intent to distribute heroin; Sentence 324 months imprisonment; five years supervised release (Sept. 15, 2000); amended to 262 months imprisonment (May 19, 2015). Commuted to: Sentence expires in February 2017.

To speak of these defendants whose sentences have been commuted by Mr. Obama as "non-violent" is utterly disingenuous. These White House summaries clearly do not disclose the defendants' prior convictions. Were these scumbags really first-time offenders? Do you really believe federal judges were imposing sentences of 235 months to life on first-time offenders? Or did they have prior convictions for armed robbery? Distribution of heroin?

Thirty-nine Quad-Cities-area drug users have died from heroin overdoses during the last five years. Every time one of Mr. Obama's "non-violent drug dealers" deals drugs, he deals potential death. And with drug sales, drug wars and gun violence: 340 shot dead; 1,979 shot and wounded in Chicago this year alone.


Posted: Wednesday, August 4, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Concealed Carry Prophets of Doom Guessed Wrong

Those who favor stricter gun control in Illinois have operated on the premise -- I believe in good faith -- that allowing the concealed carry of firearms will result in greater gun violence because those with "concealed carry permits" (CCPs) will misuse their weapons.

On July 9, 2013, Illinois became the last state to permit concealed carry -- only after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit declared unconstitutional Illinois law prohibiting concealed carry as violation of the Second Amendment. The court gave the legislature 180 days to craft a bill permitting individuals to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense.

Three years have now passed since concealed carry became Illinois law. Because I could recall no news accounts of Illinois CCPs being convicted of firearm violence, I went to the internet to see if there were accounts I might have missed.


The first article I found was a Chicago Tribune piece captioned "In Illinois, concealed carry of guns has quiet first year; expansion sought." To my surprise, the article did not list a single incident of criminal misuse of a firearm by a CCP. The worst "problem" cited involved an incident wherein a CCP lawfully tried to foil an armed robbery by shooting at the fleeing robber in Crestwood, forcing a responding police officer to duck for cover.

As of May 31, 2016, IllinoisCarry states that about 178,000 CCPs are in effect in Illinois. ( illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=61841) So how many of those 178,000 CCPs have been convicted of gun violence or murder?

In checking the internet, I can find only one episode of gun violence by an Illinois CCP -- a murder/suicide. Given the lockstep predisposition of the liberal press to lobby for "stricter gun control," it is inconceivable that if CCPs were using their weapons for murder and violent crimes, that the internet would not be awash with such reports.

Corroborating my research, Chuck Goudie of the ABC-7 Chicago I-Team wrote on Aug. 14, 2015,

"There are now more than 120,000 CCPs in Illinois and it is extremely rare to hear about a permit holder being involved in any violent crime, much less a murder. Friday's (murder/suicide) was the first of 2015 according to police officials, if not the first at all here since Illinois passed concealed carry."

That translates to 1 violent crime per 120,000 CCPs. This is consistent with a July 16, 2015 Report from the Crime Prevention Research Center, entitled "Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States," which concludes, "Permit Holders are Extremely Law-abiding."

"Permit holders on rare occasion violate the law. But in order to truly appreciate how incredibly rare those problems are, one needs to remember that there are over 12.8 million CCPs in the US. Indeed, it is impossible to think of any other group in the US who is anywhere near as law-abiding ...

"Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Combining the data for CCPs, in Florida and Texas, it is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is only 1/7th the rate for police officers. The data are similar in other states." (crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015-Report-from-the-Crime-Prevention-Research-Center-Final.pdf)

In Illinois the standards for CCP are rigorous. The applicant, among other things, must have no felony or misdemeanor convictions for crimes of violence, no pending warrants, a full background check, 16 hours of firearms training by a state police-approved instructor, and local law enforcement officers must have no objection.

Additionally, the new law clarifies and expands the reporting requirements relating to individuals who have severe mental health problems. Physicians, clinical psychologists, and qualified examiners must report when they determine that someone poses a clear and present danger, is developmentally disabled, or may be otherwise disqualified from possessing a FOID Card. (For a good summary of the requirements, see: chicagotribune.com/news/ct-obama-gun-control-illinois-impact-met-20160105-9-story.html)


Posted: Wednesday, July 9, 2016 - QCOline.com


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea